Spotify to launch in the US this week!!!

I wonder if it uploads your playlist to "the cloud" or their server securely so that you can access it from anywhere (but obviously only you can access it).

Nope. It sounds like you can include your local files in the Spotify desktop client's library (so that you don't have to run both a Spotify and iTunes client), and use that to sync files from your PC to the Spotify player on your iOS/Android device, but the only things you can stream from the cloud are songs on in their database.

If anyone can enlighten me, I was curious as to how exactly Spotify's contracts with record labels, etc. work. I can only assume they get a gigantic sum of $ paid for the rights of the music?

In the case of the US launch, it sounds like the ink is still drying on the deals with the major labels, so I guess only the lawyers know exactly how the contracts work, but the general concept for these services has been that rights-owners get paid-per-listen. Some very tiny amount per-listen, to be sure, but something greater than 0.

This is getting close to the ideal form of music-payment I've been wanting for a decade now: pay artists based on how much we actually *listen* to their music. Instead of paying the same $15 for one album that you listen to once and realize you hate it vs. one that you listen to 1000 times, under this system you pay almost nothing to "sample", and only pay real money for the stuff that you actually get value from.

The only remaining bit is that while the rights-holders are getting paid per-listen, the consumer isn't directly *paying* per-listen. Instead, money is paid to rights-holders out of a pool created from subscription fees and ad revenue, while some (most) users actually pay nothing directly. But that might be a better way to do it anyway, since having to decide every time you play a song "is this going to be worth my $0.0002?" would probably be too much of a mental burden.

Oh, I heard that Spotify will add the option to buy music as legal downloads as well (for the free users who don't want to subscribe). Can anyone confirm this?

Have not heard this, and since AFAIK it's not part of the European service, I'm not sure why it would become part of the US service.

Though as someone who is most interested at the moment in using it as a free service for sampling-then-purchasing, it would make sense for them to offer to sell me downloads directly rather than letting me go somewhere else to buy them. However, I just read that the free service will allow unlimited streaming for the next 6 months in the US, in contrast to the Euro version where you're limited to 20 (or even 10?) hours per month, and it's under the Euro scenario that I envisioned using the free-sampling-then-downloading model. (and of course it's going to be a big money-loser for Spotify for those 6 months because they'll have to pay out a lot to rights-holders while having very little income from paying subscribers, but they're doing it as part of a grow-user-base-first, make-money-later strategy).

but eventually most music will just be bought and downloaded. It's already going in that direction.

Correction: it already *went* in the "bought and downloaded" direction. That's last-generation's old news, which means CDs are now *two* generations old. Now it's going in the "access for streaming" direction (and Spotify is even late to the game there).

Neil
 
Trying out thanks to polly (pollution) here. Don't think I'll end up paying for it as I already have rhapsody which allows me to put it on my sansa clip 4gb but I'll probably stick with the free version if there are albums I can get on there that I can't get on Rhapsody (Red Circuit's Trancestate for example)
 
It sounds like you can have the offline songs on your device as long as you keep paying, but you loose them all when you quit. Seems like a lot of those "rental" DRM based services. While the cost/year is only $120, it's $120 every year. I'd rather just buy CDs. Sure, I will spend more, but I'll own them. I can certainly see using the free service for checking out albums that get mentioned here I've never heard.

If I'm not getting it right, please correct me. That's just what it sounds like from what I read.
 
OK... perhaps a stupid question. Why would I want to stream music on my PC or to my Droid? Why wouldn't I just listen to the music I own? I assume I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm genuinely not sure what it is. Thanks.
 
Why wouldn't I just listen to the music I own? I assume I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm genuinely not sure what it is. Thanks.

I don't know how much music you have ripped to your computer, but I can listen to 15+ million songs on Spotify. It gives me a chance to legally sample and listen to a lot of stuff that I probably neverwise would check out instantly. For example, I listened to several live Rush discs yesterday that I had never heard.

Honestly, I feel the social aspects of the service will play a huge role in the eventual popularity as well.
 
I don't know how much music you have ripped to your computer, but I can listen to 15+ million songs on Spotify. It gives me a chance to legally sample and listen to a lot of stuff that I probably neverwise would check out instantly. For example, I listened to several live Rush discs yesterday that I had never heard.

Honestly, I feel the social aspects of the service will play a huge role in the eventual popularity as well.
Cool. Thanks.
 
On top of that, and probably a minor concern but still helpful, it frees up hard drive space. I assume the average person doesn't really care where the music is coming from....that is, if it's playing off of their hard drive or being streamed from someone else's. So it's like having all of iTunes available to you for $5-$10 a month.
 
Why would I want to stream music on my PC or to my Droid? Why wouldn't I just listen to the music I own?

You're thinking more of the music locker services like Google Music Beta, Amazon Cloud Drive, or Apple's iCloud, which are quite different than Spotify.

I've been using Google Music Beta for a while now, so I have my 15000-song, 110 GB collection in the cloud now. The main advantage for me so far is that when I'm driving or anywhere else that I'm using my phone for music, I have access to my entire collection, rather then whatever fraction of it I have loaded on my memory card at the moment. At the moment I don't think that's enough of an advantage that I'd pay for it if they started charging, but maybe I'll discover new uses in the future.

Neil
 
You're thinking more of the music locker services like Google Music Beta, Amazon Cloud Drive, or Apple's iCloud, which are quite different than Spotify.

I've been using Google Music Beta for a while now, so I have my 15000-song, 110 GB collection in the cloud now. The main advantage for me so far is that when I'm driving or anywhere else that I'm using my phone for music, I have access to my entire collection, rather then whatever fraction of it I have loaded on my memory card at the moment. At the moment I don't think that's enough of an advantage that I'd pay for it if they started charging, but maybe I'll discover new uses in the future.

Neil

So it is lighter than my 160 GB iPod. Got it.
 
So it is lighter than my 160 GB iPod. Got it.

Lighter, smaller, and cheaper, yeah. If I had already spent the money for a 160GB iPod, then a cloud-based music locker would be less valuable to me. On the other hand, if I hadn't already solved the problem of listening to music in the office by spending money on an external hard drive to mirror my collection, then a music locker would be *more* valuable. And a (currently) free locker like Google's would still make me stop using my iPod, since then I would no longer need to carry two separate electronic boxes around with me, and could carry just my smartphone. I'm going to have my smartphone with me under any conditions, so I love it when any other electronic boxes (such as a GPS nav unit) can be subsumed into it.

Neil
 
Lighter, smaller, and cheaper, yeah. If I had already spent the money for a 160GB iPod, then a cloud-based music locker would be less valuable to me. On the other hand, if I hadn't already solved the problem of listening to music in the office by spending money on an external hard drive to mirror my collection, then a music locker would be *more* valuable. And a (currently) free locker like Google's would still make me stop using my iPod, since then I would no longer need to carry two separate electronic boxes around with me, and could carry just my smartphone. I'm going to have my smartphone with me under any conditions, so I love it when any other electronic boxes (such as a GPS nav unit) can be subsumed into it.

Neil

Still not sold. Cell phone reception is often spotty. I need to be able to listen to my tunes at all times, even in Bumblefuck, Kansas. If I get into Spotify, I assume it will be for the social aspects. But when I have PMX, what other social musical outlet could I possibly need? :)
 
Still not sold. Cell phone reception is often spotty. I need to be able to listen to my tunes at all times, even in Bumblefuck, Kansas. If I get into Spotify, I assume it will be for the social aspects. But when I have PMX, what other social musical outlet could I possibly need? :)
It also has an offline mode, where you can sync as many a 3,333 songs to your phone. They are there when there is no signal, even airplane mode. This synch happens when your phone is connected to your home network over Wi-Fi. It's really pretty slick.
 
I dig this. I had an Rdio account for a few months, but closed it because it was really buggy, despite its good selection of music. Even with the ads, this is much better. :kickass: